Attendance:Catherine Axinn, Josephine Bloomfield, Carolyn Cardenas, Duncan Brown,Angie Bukley, Lee Cibrowski, John Day, Glenn Doston, Judith Edinger,Jason Hartz, Peter Johnson, David Juedes, Hans Kruse, ChristineMattley, Mark Mecum, David Mould, Michael Mumper, Chester Pach, AnimeshRathore, Susan Sarnoff, Katherine Tadlock, Maureen Weissenrieder,Yingjiao Xu, and Julia Zimmerman
Excused: Pat Beamish, Donna Conaty, David Drabold, Robert Roe, and Josep Rota,.
Guest: Katherine Jellison
Convened: The meeting was convened at 2:05 pm.
1. Approval of March Minutes:
Minutes of the March 10th, 2006 meeting were approved.
2. Chair’s Report (Duncan Brown):
A. Welcome the new GSS representative: Duncan welcomed Animesh Rathore, the new GSS representative, who is taking Liz Miller’s place. Liz is graduating in June. Animesh will join the Curriculum committee. Duncan said that he will send revised lists of members, email addresses, and committee membership shortly.
B. Graduate Resources Implementation Team:Duncan said that 3 pm onwards today, discussion will focus around theImplementation team’s proposal and its links with the charge ofGraduate Council and specifically with Chester’s committee (Planningand Strategy).
C. Provost’s visit: Provost Krendl will attend the first hour of the May 12th meeting. Duncanencouraged members to think about issues that Graduate Council mightwant her to address and to send them to him so that he can forward theinformation to her.
D. June meeting: Duncan reminded Council that the June meeting is on 2nd (instead of the second Friday, which is the 9th, the day of graduate commencement) and from 3 to 5pm. The change in the meeting time is to avoid conflict with the University International Council meeting.
E. Role of Graduate Council:Duncan requested members to send him their comments via email betweennow and the May meeting regarding the role of Graduate Council at OhioUniversity. He added that there have been manyarticles in the Athens News and The Post about academic integrity andplagiarism and it seems appropriate for Graduate Council to havediscussion about that.
F. Two-tier process for Program Reviews: Duncan proposed having a two-tier process for Program Reviews, akin to the Conflict of Interest Reviews. Theprogram reviews would be discussed at the committee level and if thereare problems or concerns with any of them, they then discussed byGraduate Council.
3. Remarks by Michael Mumper:
A. Graduate Programs Outreach:Michael informed Graduate Council about the new proposal that wasapproved by the President’s cabinet and goes into effect July 1st, 2006 about all Regional campus graduate courses come under the purview of Athens campus. The academic credits from these courses get credited to the departments on campus here.
B. Regents Advisory Committee on Graduate Study: Michael presented a RACGS update to members of Graduate Council.
i.) Masters in Financial Economics: The full proposal for the MFE is under review, the program development proposal was reviewed favorably. The response document will be presented either in the May or June meeting.
ii.) Master of Science in Bio-Medical Engineering: The program development proposal for Masters in Bio-medical engineering was also reviewed favorably.
iii.) Ph.D. in Civil Engineering: The proposal for a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering did not review well. So, Michael, Angie Bukley, and Dennis Irwin met with the Ohio Board of Regents Staff to discuss ways to improve the proposal. The proposal has been revised to be offered in partnership with Case Western Reserve University.
iv.) Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering: The Board of Trustees has approved the Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering. It has not been presented to RACGS yet.
4. Graduate Affairs and Fellowships Committee (Peter Johnson):
A. Named Fellows: Peter announced the names that the committee recommended for the named fellowships:
Robert Davis (History) -- John Cady Fellowship
Merri Biechler (Theater) -- Anthony Trisolini Fellowship
Yuping Huang (Physics) --Graduate Felloship
Carrie Oeding (English) -- Claude Kantner Felloship
Yunjing Wang (MCB Program) -- Donald Clippinger Fellowship
Alternates:
Mark Leeman (Communications)
Eric McElroy (Biological Sciences)
Peternoted that as in previous years, the committee found the overallquality of the submitted proposals to be superb, and it made itdifficult to restrict recommendations to just five students. Thecommittee wishes and recommends that Graduate Council seek the means toextend the number of annual awards from five (currently) to seven. Inaddition to permitting us to reward more students for meritoriousperformance, this change would send a clear signal to students andfaculty that Ohio University has a most serious commitment to andappreciation for graduate education.
B. Resolution for the Provost: Peter added that the monetary value of this award is low and does not allow us to be nationally competitive. He suggested increasing the amount to $15,000 from $13,000 currently. He noted that it is a modest increase, but at least it is in the right direction.
Josie asked if this could be an area where we could work with Alumna to name fellowships after them. Michael clarified that the fellowships are no longer coming from the endowment. The endowment funds were spent many years ago and the fellowships now come out of the operations budget. Maureen suggested examining the nature of similar fellowships at other institutions. Josieadded that English majors tend to not be very rich and those who are,are the ones who worked in other areas after their undergraduate degree. So, it will be very discipline specific, to have fellowships named after successful alumna. Michael said that currently fellowships are not department specific. Katie added that since the fellowships are base funded, they are not tied to a particular department. Also, it is advantageous to have an open competition, it allows for a diversity of research to be rewarded. Peter added that but it is still possible for alums to make donations to specific departments. Maureensaid that we should also look into naming fellowships for pastadministrators, whose names would mean something to departments. Catherine said that this is a great first step and that we should keep working in the right direction.
GraduateCouncil passed the motion to present the Resolution to Provost Krendlregarding increasing the number of graduate fellowships from five toseven and to increase the amount from $13,000 to $15,000.
5. Curriculum Committee (Chris Mattley):
Proposal for a Masters of Sciences in Recreation and Sport Sciences with a concentration in Coaching Education: Program requirements are identical to those for students on the main campus. Courses will be taught by Athens faculty and adjunct faculty. Maureen asked about the overload policy. She said that when more courses are offered, they are then taught as overload contracts. Maureenasked if it is possible to generate overload reports that crossreference courses taught on the Athens campus as well as the branchcampuses. Michael said that they could possibly coordinate the two reports, to have a consolidated version. Josie added that there also has to be willingness on the part of the faculty to take the overload contract. She added that when she taught one class as an overload, that year it seemed overwhelming. Lee clarified that in their college, they adhere to the policy of only one course as overload per quarter. A lot of classes have to be taught as an overload, because of lack of faculty. She added that the Provost is aware of the issue. Maureen mentioned that if all faculty take overload contracts, the research agenda suffers. Duncan said that Institutional Research has typically not collected data on graduate studies. He added that Mike Williford is willing to do it, if we request it.
GraduateCouncil voted in favor of accepting the review of the proposal for aMaster of Science in Recreation and Sport Sciences with a concentrationin Coaching Education.
6. Admission Requirements Committee:
A. Conflict of Interest—Issam Khoury:Graduate Council accepted the committee’s recommendation that aconflict of interest does not exist in Issam Khoury’s current programof study, with the proviso that he not takeclasses from Dr. Shad Sargand, and also that Dr. Sargand cannot serveon his program committee.
B. Conflict of Interest policy change draft:Graduate Council approved the draft that indicates that the followingtwo kinds of cases would not have to be approved by Graduate Councilfor admission:
i.) All non-degree applications to study in a department other than the one in which the employee works.
ii.) All degree applications to study in a college other than the one in which the employee works.
Councildiscussed the possibility of someone being in the no-conflict categoryfor one program and then later on changing their program which mightfall under the conflict category. Katie said that in the present system there is no way to flag the record on SIS. Maureen asked whether the Dean’s offices are informed about the conflict of interest for an applicant. Katie said that a letter is sent to the student, to academic department, and the administrative supervisor. Angiesaid that at the department level, they can have a red flag on thefile, so that anytime that file is pulled, it will merit attention inthat regard. Duncan added that in the past there have been ways to add some text to the DARS.
7. Policies and Regulations Committee:
Proposal to Establish Limits of the Amount of Tuition Support that can be Awarded to a Degree Seeking Graduate Student:Lee explained proposal # 1 saying that the limit of receiving fundingis now being proposed to be based on the number of quarters versus thenumber of hours (260). This does not mean that everyone is being promised funding for that many quarters, but just that it is possible to do so. Duncanread Joe’s comment that to establish the maximum limit of time for astudent to receive university funding, we should use the number thatwould be one more quarter than the number of quarters required tocomplete the program. Maureen said she welcomesthe disconnect from the subsidy issue and that many of her colleaguesin other schools do not use the 260 hour rule. Chester asked if this policy can be applied to students who are currently enrolled in graduate programs. Lee said that they could discuss those case by case. Having it start in the fall for the incoming class would provide us with tracking ability from a given date. Michaeladded that at present when an appointment comes across to GraduateStudies and if the person has 260 hours, that appointment is declined. Headded that Graduate Studies checks with the departments and will do sonow as well, but now it will be for the number of quarters they havereceived financial support for. Jason asked how it would be possible to check the status for each person, if we do not have the capability to do so. Michaelsaid that the graduate appointment system went online in 2003, but theoffice of Financial Aid has had their system running for a while, so wecan use that to look into it. Angie asked if it was possible to add that feature to the graduate appointment checklist in the office of Graduate Studies. Michaelsaid that Graduate Studies does not have the in-house capability toaccomplish that, but it is on the list of ‘to do things’ via theEnterprise project.
This is a generous proposal and will aid in recruitment. Chester added that at least now we can say that it is possible to have graduate funding for five years. It makes us more competitive with the other schools. Michaelreminded Council that our doctoral subsidy has been capped, so even ifwe have more doctoral students, we do not receive subsidy from thestate. Duncan added that not having the 260limit is greatly beneficial to many programs where doctoral studentscome to them with a Masters from outside of the U.S. and a Masters fromthe U.S. Mark asked about the advantages of this proposal over the existing 260 hour policy. Michaelsaid one of the biggest is ease of use, it is also a better planningtool for the departments as well as the students, summer is notincluded in this proposal, so it provides flexibility to students, andit is now possible for them to stay on finish their programs even ifthey reach the 260 hours. Many students would leave when they reached the limit and then find it difficult to complete their programs. Jason added that this proposal will also encourage students to look for support outside their academic departments.
Mark asked about the implications in proposal #2. Michaelsaid that the proposal #2 imposes limits for Masters programs (bydegree programs), other than that it is similar to proposal #1. This allows for programs like MFA and MM to have longer time limits than other Masters programs. Hans said that the proposal #2 creates limits where there were none in the past. Carolynadded that the College of Fine Arts cannot support proposal #2, becauseof the longer period of time required to complete an MFA degree.
GraduateCouncil accepted the proposal with one change; the policy will go intoeffect from fall quarter 2006 and will apply to all students (new andcontinuing).
8. Graduate Priorities Implementation Team:
Josie informed Graduate Council that the draft in the packet for today’s meeting is very much a ‘living document’. Every two weeks, the 20 members of the team have met to discuss graduate priorities at Ohio University. Besides the meetings, the email exchanges have been key in the formulation of this draft. Discussion about the relationship of Graduate Council with the Dean of the Graduate College followed. Josiesaid that the team has looked at the structure of all the GraduateColleges in Ohio and for eight out of 10 of our peer institutions. She added that the Dean of the Graduate College also heads the Graduate Council in most institutions. Michaelsaid that at one point they had even begun drafting a possibleadministrative or organizational structure for the university if therewas to be a Graduate College. But, it seemed premature to put a lot of time and effort into it at that point in time. Duncannoted that there are three kinds of members in Graduate Council,Faculty, Dean’s representatives, and Graduate student Senaterepresentatives. The faculty who are appointedto Graduate Council serve fixed terms and are appointed by thecommittee on committee of Faculty Senate. To do that, faculty nominate themselves and then the committee on committee recommends their names. An election was considered to be a more democratic option.
Carolynsaid that it seems like in the past few months other bodies have beencreated and charged with similar tasks as that of this body. She asked about the role of Graduate Education and Research Board. Michael clarified that GERB is not charged with similar responsibilities like Graduate Council. It discusses specific investments about priorities being identified in Vision Ohio. Catherine is a member of GERB and Michael chairs that body. Catherine said that GERB is a small body and all it’s members are members of other bodies as well, hence playing dual roles. Chestersaid that the language used to describe the mission of Graduate Councilis broad enough to allow us to pick up many tasks within our purview. Josie said that we should have a clear vision of our role for either case; if we have a Graduate College or if we do not.
Chester said that he sees Graduate Council as a primary advisory body for the Dean of the Graduate College. He sees it discussing substantive issues and methods to further graduate education. Duncanagreed and said that one of the roles he sees Graduate Council playingis that of maintaining quality graduate education. Maureen noted thatGraduate Education cannot be separated from Research. Josie asked if Graduate Council has ever been involved in the research agenda of the university. Catherine said that it has not been involved directly, and not in a major way. Peter said that we are a body that facilitates graduate education without being deeply involved in the research efforts. Davidsaid that our university goal of doubling our research funding to $100million seems like something we should be involved in. Susan brought up another research issue that Graduate Council could consider discussing. She said that in many departments multiple courses are being taught by Teaching Assistants. There is no money left for providing stipends for research. Duncan noted that it is helpful to have Michael and Catherine on the GERB. Chester said that in some ways we are like any government, the constituent bodies do not communicate with each other. We can structure ourselves and can create our own charter; we have the capability to do so. Michael said that Graduate Council existed when we had a Graduate College. Carolyn said that now is a good time to outline our role and have a formal definition about our charge. Duncan said that he has been hoping to have that formalized for a while now. He would like to have some language drafted before the Provost’s visit.
Discussion then focused on some decisions made in the recent past where Graduate Council could have been consulted, but was not. Housing for graduate students has been an issue of concern recently. WithMill Street apartments no longer available, the sense of community thatthe international graduate students enjoyed is lacking. These policies affect recruitment and retention rates of our graduate students.
The Quality of Life committee can look into housing issues and child care concerns for potential graduate students.
Theadvantage, Duncan noted in our mission being broad is that it allows usto incorporate many details about graduate education. Josie added that our standing committees can be restructured and renamed if the need be. Hans added that we should also look into shared governance with bodies like GERB. Susan said that it would be beneficial to all, if all of these bodies share their minutes with each other. Duncansaid that the minutes for Graduate Council are online and can beaccessed from the hyperlink to Graduate Council from the GraduateStudies home page (http://www.ohio.edu/graduate/gradcoun.cfm).
Duncan said that he would like to request everyone to send their comments about the role of Graduate Council to Chester. Johnsaid that a large amount of time of Graduate Council is spent onoperations issues, which can be handled by the Graduate College if wehave one. Graduate Council can then be issue oriented and can focus on advocacy for graduate education.
Chester asked about the possibility of OU changing to the semester system. He asked if the Provost will give Graduate Council an update on that. Leesaid that during the President’s visit to their college there was somediscussion about it and the fact that it would decrease the workload. Also,in the light of a new student information system, it would bebeneficial to effect the change concurrent with the set up of the newsystem. That way, resources are not wasted insetting up the system for one way and then spending money in a coupleof years to change it. Josie said that the pedagogical value of having a shorter break in the winter is significant as well. It is hard to leave research and other projects for a six week period.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:55 pm.
Next meeting on May 12, 2006, 2-4 pm in the Governance Room in Walter Hall.
